Rory J Piper1, Keerthi K Senthil2, Jiun-Lin Yan2, Stephen J Price2. 1. Cambridge Brain Tumour Imaging Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Hill's Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. rorypiper@doctors.org.uk. 2. Cambridge Brain Tumour Imaging Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Hill's Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our primary objective was to report the current neuroimaging classification systems of spatial patterns of progression in glioblastoma. In addition, we aimed to report the terminology used to describe 'progression' and to assess the compliance with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Criteria. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify all neuroimaging studies of glioblastoma that have employed a categorical classification system of spatial progression patterns. Our review was registered with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) registry. RESULTS: From the included 157 results, we identified 129 studies that used labels of spatial progression patterns that were not based on radiation volumes (Group 1) and 50 studies that used labels that were based on radiation volumes (Group 2). In Group 1, we found 113 individual labels and the most frequent were: local/localised (58%), distant/distal (51%), diffuse (20%), multifocal (15%) and subependymal/subventricular zone (15%). We identified 13 different labels used to refer to 'progression', of which the most frequent were 'recurrence' (99%) and 'progression' (92%). We identified that 37% (n = 33/90) of the studies published following the release of the RANO classification were adherent compliant with the RANO criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Our review reports significant heterogeneity in the published systems used to classify glioblastoma spatial progression patterns. Standardization of terminology and classification systems used in studying progression would increase the efficiency of our research in our attempts to more successfully treat glioblastoma.
BACKGROUND: Our primary objective was to report the current neuroimaging classification systems of spatial patterns of progression in glioblastoma. In addition, we aimed to report the terminology used to describe 'progression' and to assess the compliance with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Criteria. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify all neuroimaging studies of glioblastoma that have employed a categorical classification system of spatial progression patterns. Our review was registered with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) registry. RESULTS: From the included 157 results, we identified 129 studies that used labels of spatial progression patterns that were not based on radiation volumes (Group 1) and 50 studies that used labels that were based on radiation volumes (Group 2). In Group 1, we found 113 individual labels and the most frequent were: local/localised (58%), distant/distal (51%), diffuse (20%), multifocal (15%) and subependymal/subventricular zone (15%). We identified 13 different labels used to refer to 'progression', of which the most frequent were 'recurrence' (99%) and 'progression' (92%). We identified that 37% (n = 33/90) of the studies published following the release of the RANO classification were adherent compliant with the RANO criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Our review reports significant heterogeneity in the published systems used to classify glioblastoma spatial progression patterns. Standardization of terminology and classification systems used in studying progression would increase the efficiency of our research in our attempts to more successfully treat glioblastoma.
Authors: June L Chan; Susan W Lee; Benedick A Fraass; Daniel P Normolle; Harry S Greenberg; Larry R Junck; Stephen S Gebarski; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Walter Stummer; Tobias Beck; Wolfgang Beyer; Jan Hendrik Mehrkens; Andreas Obermeier; Nima Etminan; Herbert Stepp; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Reinhold Baumgartner; Jochen Herms; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2007-11-23 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Felix Bokstein; Felix Kovner; Deborah T Blumenthal; Zvi Ram; Haim Templehoff; Andrew A Kanner; Benjamin W Corn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Benjamin B Kasten; Neha Udayakumar; Jianmei W Leavenworth; Anna M Wu; Suzanne E Lapi; Jonathan E McConathy; Anna G Sorace; Asim K Bag; James M Markert; Jason M Warram Journal: Theranostics Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 11.556